Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Recent models relying on neural components surpass classical topic models according to these metrics. At the same time, unlike classical models, the practice of neural topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automatic coherence for neural models has not been validated using human experimentation. In addition, as we show via a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature, there is a substantial standardization gap in the use of automated topic modeling benchmarks. We address both the standardization gap and the validation gap. Using two of the most widely used topic model evaluation datasets, we assess a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models in a systematic, clearly documented, reproducible way. We use automatic coherence along with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks, namely, topic rating and word intrusion. Automated evaluation will declare one model significantly different from another when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments.